Michigan joins the rest of us

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

I don't think you change things because there's no compelling reason to stay the same. I think you change things because they're broken.

From the evidence, this wasn't broken (evidently Michigan girls did not trail other states in scholarships) but the courts decided otherwise.

The courts made the decision for a reason. I am sure there was more to the issue than scholarships. That is just an educated guess on my part

I know it is easy to over-simplify these issues. I was just saying that for whatever reason the change was made, the change is doable.

Peace

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

I don't think you change things because there's no compelling reason to stay the same. I think you change things because they're broken.

From the evidence, this wasn't broken (evidently Michigan girls did not trail other states in scholarships) but the courts decided otherwise.

Possibly too tangantial, but what do you think of colleges that play their golf as fall-only, and baseball/softball as fall-only sports? There is a small college conference in new england that does just that. Is it discriminatory in your opinion?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You said my example was apples and oranges, so is this example. Golf, tennis and soccer are not revenue college sports or revenue sports at the HS level either. If you need to know golf, tennis and soccer are all played in the fall or spring depending on gender. I am sure this is done on the either side to prevent taking kids away from the major sports.

I believe Lacrosse plays both genders at that same time. After all these sports you mentioned are outdoor sports and it would be very hard to move these sports to the winter in the Midwest. We all know that football, basketball and baseball/softball are king. The other sports would have little participation if you moved those sports to other times.



It is changing, now what? The bottom line the sky is not falling and you will adjust and get used to it like everyone else. All these other issues that you keep bring up are not very good reasons to keep girl's basketball in the fall. If the rest of the country is not having an issue with this, why is Michigan so behind the times on this? All I am hearing is little sarcastic comments about why the lawsuit was really brought. I just wanted to hear a compelling argument for things to stay the same. If all you can come up with are shots on Title IX and the motives behind the lawsuit that explains why this lawsuit was successful.

Peace

So... golf for boys is fall and golf for girls is spring? Last I checked golf courses were full of men and women at the same time. What does gender have to do with it? So are Illinois golf parents gonna sue because there kids do or don't play in the Fall? And what does revenue have to do with anything? This is HS athletics, extracurricular, etc.....


Lacrosse!!??!! If it wasn't for Duke, who'd know what the heck that was!?



If Michigan was so far behind the times, why are we in the top 5 for girls scholarships in the country for those 2 sports? Maybe all the other states are doing it wrong if all HS sports is about scholarships and revenue....

I can accept change,..I will accept change. I will coach in the winter, and maybe get Mick to officiate one of my contests.

But, I don't need to give a compelling argument on why to stay the same. I thought the law was about innocent until proven guilty? It wasn't broke don't mess with it, and I find it hard to believe that Michigan will pass the likes of Cal, Tex, NY...whoever, in number of scholarships.

[mick]

Originally Posted by CoachP

I can accept change,..I will accept change. I will coach in the winter, and maybe get Mick to officiate one of my contests.

Oh, sure you would, ...to make me pay for your long week in the U.P.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CoachP

So... golf for boys is fall and golf for girls is spring? Last I checked golf courses were full of men and women at the same time. What does gender have to do with it? So are Illinois golf parents gonna sue because there kids do or don't play in the Fall? And what does revenue have to do with anything? This is HS athletics, extracurricular, etc.....

But the last time I checked football was the most popular boys sport in this country. If you played Boy's golf at the same time it would not bother me. Moving the golf season would very likely take some kids away from the golf team and in some cased would eliminate many golf programs. This is the same reason boy's volleyball plays in the spring. If you put it during the fall, you might not have a team.

Originally Posted by CoachP

Lacrosse!!??!! If it wasn't for Duke, who'd know what the heck that was!?

Seriously, Lacrosse is one of the most growing sports in my state. There are teams popping up everyone on both girl's and boy's sides. Kids who do not like baseball or softball but like a little contact play this sport.

Originally Posted by CoachP

If Michigan was so far behind the times, why are we in the top 5 for girls scholarships in the country for those 2 sports? Maybe all the other states are doing it wrong if all HS sports is about scholarships and revenue....

I will ask you the same question. Why can you not achieve the very same things under the same seasons as everyone else? If Girl's basketball is so big, it seems to me you might have people attend games that might ordinarily not attend those games because they are used to watching that sport when everyone else is playing. What is the big deal? And if many games in Michigan are going to be going to girl/boy doubleheaders, I think that would raise the level of interest. That does not work very well here, but there are many states this works very well.

Originally Posted by CoachP

But, I don't need to give a compelling argument on why to stay the same. I thought the law was about innocent until proven guilty? It wasn't broke don't mess with it, and I find it hard to believe that Michigan will pass the likes of Cal, Tex, NY...whoever, in number of scholarships.

If you do not need to give a compelling argument, then guys like you should stop complaining about it multiple times a year? We have talked about this issue a hundred, thousand, million times on this board. I would have never known this was even an issue until guys kept complaining about it. I did not even realize that other states even did this 10 years ago because no one from those states came here *****ing about it. I did live next to a state that claimed playing 6 on 6 Basketball was the best thing and should never change. When they changed after awhile everyone got over it and moved on and get over it. And some of the very same reasons to keep it the same were the reasons you are giving here. There were people that felt it would hurt tradition and what was once special about their state. Now this is a complete non-issue from what I understand.

The change is going to happen whether you are on board or not. This was fought hard in court and it has been decided. And because you felt it was not broke, does not mean many others did not feel it was broke. And I bet everyone will wonder why after a year or two what the big fight was over anyway.

Peace

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course they did. That is all they know. If we use that argument and change the topic there are a lot of things those females would not be able to because that is the way they were raised.

Wow. "Those females," Jeff? Your patronizing attitude about females and your superior knowledge about what is good for them would make you fit right in with your brethren on the Supreme Court (read Justice Ginsberg's dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart for a well-crafted dismantling of your notions of females limited capacity to function in a world without your guidance and protection). Tsk, tsk.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

(read Justice Ginsberg's dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart for a well-crafted dismantling of your notions of females limited capacity to function in a world without your guidance and protection)

Wasn't that the case that decided women couldn't be prohibited from breast feeding in public during roller coaster rides?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

Wow. "Those females," Jeff? Your patronizing attitude about females and your superior knowledge about what is good for them would make you fit right in with your brethren on the Supreme Court (read Justice Ginsberg's dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart for a well-crafted dismantling of your notions of females limited capacity to function in a world without your guidance and protection). Tsk, tsk.

Patronizing???

It sounds to me like we have a lot of males upset that their lives are going to be altered because girl's basketball is being moved (e.g. less big games). I think my record of equality and standing for equality is long documented on this site. If anything you sound like the old segregationist that complain that things should stay the same because that is the way we have always done it. Not that anyone here is a student and has to make college choices based on this factor. And from what I understand this was more of a volleyball lawsuit than one from the basketball side. I did not play volleyball and I do not understand the culture of volleyball. I am sure some of this debate rests in that level of understand. But we are on a basketball board and I have yet to hear anything that is solid other than opinions and “I think it is a bad idea.”

When I asked you a very fair question you tried to hide behind the argument by saying it was too complicated. You still have not said why this is a bad thing.

Also for the record, if my state tomorrow changed the girl's season to the fall, it would not change my life one bit. I do not work girl's basketball and it certainly would not want to work another sport during the football season. I do not work volleyball for the very same reason.

I do always find it funny the very people that are never subject to discrimination are always the people trying to claim "discrimination" is situations it does not apply.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

Wow. "Those females," Jeff? Your patronizing attitude about females and your superior knowledge about what is good for them would make you fit right in with your brethren on the Supreme Court (read Justice Ginsberg's dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart for a well-crafted dismantling of your notions of females limited capacity to function in a world without your guidance and protection). Tsk, tsk.

Did you just use "Ginsberg" and "well crafted dissent" in the same sentence? Hmmm.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Wasn't that the case that decided women couldn't be prohibited from breast feeding in public during roller coaster rides?

Nah, it was the case that decided that women couldn't be trusted to make medical decisions in consultation with their physicians....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

Nah, it was the case that decided that women couldn't be trusted to make medical decisions in consultation with their physicians....

What in the hell does that have to do with this discussion? This is a sport which no one is privileged to play. There are college scholarships at stake and I am sure nothing will change because seasons do.

Guess what, you can throw all the barbs out there, it is going to change anyway. Get used to it or get out. It really is that simple.

Peace

[truerookie]

IMO, this arguement is baseless. A decision has been made combine the season and live with. We as offficials do not have an arguement in this fight. We can work the games offered to us or not. I live in an areas were the seasons are combined, the gyms are smaller and I do not here the coaches, players or officials complaining about the two sports being played in the same season. We have bigger issues in society to worry about. Issues like Jena6 in Louisiana.

respectfully

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It sounds to me like we have a lot of males upset that their lives are going to be altered because girl's basketball is being moved.

I am not upset that my life will be altered (as I indicated, the change is preferable to me), but I do think the court issued a decision that was wrongly decided. To be sure, some people just don't like change. And, to be sure, Michigan will be able to adjust.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think my record of equality and standing for equality is long documented on this site.

We can certainly agree that your record is long documented on this site. As for the characterization of your record, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If anything you sound like the old segregationist that complain that things should stay the same because that is the way we have always done it. Not that anyone here is a student and has to make college choices based on this factor.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also for the record, if my state tomorrow changed the girl's season to the fall, it would not change my life one bit. I do not work girl's basketball and it certainly would not want to work another sport during the football season.

Thank you for this significant contribution you make to the quality of life of high school female athletes.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do always find it funny the very people that are never subject to discrimination are always the people trying to claim "discrimination" is situations it does not apply.

I agree that it is too bad when people claim discrimination where it does not exist. For example, the parents who started the whole "change of seasons" lawsuit. But I am not claiming any kind of discrimination here. The parents were not attempting to unlawfully "discriminate" against me or others. The court, in its decision, is not "discriminating" against girls or boys or hermaphrodites. The fact that girls and boys will play basketball in the same season is not, in my opinion, a form of unlawful discrimination (nor was it unlawful discrimination, in my opinion, for girls and boys to play in different seasons). I do think girls experience unlawful discrimination in educational athletics more than boys. But I don't see any "discrimination" in the court's ruling or the fact that Michigan is having to make adjustments. It just is what it is. As truerookie points out, we'll just live with it. And we'll be fine. (In that, I agree with you Jeff.)

Although I am not here claiming any discrimination in this discussion, I do claim every right to point out discrimination. And I caution you Jeff to not conclude (based on, what, message board postings?!) that someone else has never experienced discrimination. You don't know my "characteristics" and my experiences. You just make lots of assumptions about them.

I'm done in this thread....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

Although I am not here claiming any discrimination in this discussion, I do claim every right to point out discrimination. And I caution you Jeff to not conclude (based on, what, message board postings?!) that someone else has never experienced discrimination. You don't know my "characteristics" and my experiences. You just make lots of assumptions about them.

I'm done in this thread....

Once again your post says volumes. Unless you are a lawyer or unless your kids are greatly affected, why are you *****ing about it? Get over it; it is going to happen no matter what you or I personally think one way or another. If there was no discrimination, then you would be playing basketball this fall. I do not claim to know everything about this case. I do not that the same issues you guys keep complaining about are the very same issues the rest of the country had to deal with. And as truerookie said, this is not our issue anyway.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

The court, in its decision, is not "discriminating" against girls or boys or hermaphrodites.

Great - that's all we need - a third group of teams. Does this mean all the schools are going to have to build more locker rooms?

Also - are we now going to have "Joan Diebler" references?